Pope: priests should blog, tweet the gospel too

New media isn't just a way for kids these days to post videos of cats—it …

Priests blogging! Cardinals on Facebook! Dogs and cats living together! No, it's not the mass hysteria out of an 80s sci-fi movie: Pope Benedict XVI urged priests over the weekend to use as many tools as possible to communicate with people, which includes the Internet and—yes—blogging. The Pope, who has been a bit of an Internet cudmudgeon, acknowledged that "the larger digital world represents a great resource for humanity" and said priests should take advantage of the tool before they become outdated.

The Pope's speech was posted in advance of the World Day of Communications set to take place in May, and it's clear that this year, the Pope's message is all about being active online. He emphasized that it's not enough to merely be present on the Web—"Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis."

Priests should also make sure they're getting on board early, becoming familiar with these tools while still in seminary. The Pope noted that the Internet isn't just an artifact of the past in digital form, but rather a present and engaging medium. Still, he warned that priests shouldn't get carried away—their main focus should remain on religion. "Priests present in the world of digital communications should be less notable for their media savvy than for their priestly heart," the Pope wrote.

Pope Benedict has not always been the most Internet-savvy cleric himself, despite his efforts in recent years to ensure that the online world is part of the Vatican's focus. In March of 2009, he was embarrassed by his decision to lift an excommunication of a controversial bishop who made a name for himself by minimizing the Holocaust—a view that was easily Google-able, but one that passed under His Holiness' radar nonetheless. "I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on," Benedict wrote in a letter following the incident. "I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news."

As noted by the Associated Press, there are already a number of priests active online, including the archbishop of Naples Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe and the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony. Both of these have their own Facebook profiles, though a quick search indicates that they're not yet on Twitter (c'mon guys!). But with the Vatican pushing its own YouTube channel and even an iPhone app that lets users read announcements and view videos, it's clear that the Vatican is all about spreading the gospel online.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Originally posted by chimly:Unlikely to work, since they can't have readers posting questions back or otherwise challenging their facts, logic, and moral authority.

If by this you mean that the Church doesn't go out of its way to give a prominent voice to anonymous internet posters who have no intention of actually engaging in fair diologue, I'm pretty sure you're correct.

I'm an agnostic, but I'll say that I have never met a priest who did anything but welcome questions.

It boils down to their having faith, and that's not something that can be dispelled logically even if you have an eye toward trying.

'Course, on the Internet, it'll be a bunch of yahoos without any real interest in a dialogue, just in HURR I'M AN EDGY ATHEIST Dawkins-without-the-brains bullshit.

THIS.

If you engage an educated, mature person of faith like a priest, you are most likely going to get intelligent dialogue, as long as you are polite and genuine. Of course, this doesn't describe the internet well, so aggressive moderation will probably be required.

This reeks of the same outdated thinking that prompts politicians to start tweeting and set up Facebook pages. They're not really sure why or to what end, but they keep hearing about these new fangled communications technologies that all the kids are into and they can't be left behind!

Originally posted by Semi On:This reeks of the same outdated thinking that prompts politicians to start tweeting and set up Facebook pages. They're not really sure why or to what end, but they keep hearing about these new fangled communications technologies that all the kids are into and they can't be left behind!

They pay me to handle their social networking presences for them. You shut your whore mouth.

It would be really great if the Church could tap into the apostolic Apple following - maybe deify Steve Jobs or something. Talk about a resurgence of the Faith in America! And the donation plates would fill up pretty quickly to boot.

Hmm. Intriguing. As long as it's not during mass or during meetings. But it sounds more like a "marketing" type of thing and should be handled that way. I.e., not the responsibility of individual priests/parishes. It's not like the time of mass is different every week, so I don't need a "don't forget church!" tweet. Blegh.

There's a part of me, though, that is unwelcoming toward it. We don't need more places/people to be connected with. Taking a break from the incessant chatter is not a bad thing.

Also:

quote:

Internet cudmudgeon

is now my new name to call people. "Ah! You're just being an Internet cudmudgeon. Go chew some!"

Originally posted by chimly:Unlikely to work, since they can't have readers posting questions back or otherwise challenging their facts, logic, and moral authority.

You're thinking of someone else. For the most part, priests are going to be well educated, secure in their faith, polite, engaging and open to a wide range of discussion topics.

I think you'll find that most of the ignorant statements coming from those of faith come from either those that are not well educated in their faith or are not secure in their faith. Those that are both are usually interesting to talk to.

Religion used to be like psychotherapy. You had a problem, you'd seek the priest's guidance, and he'd quote some scripture that would help guide you along a virtuous path. During their time, priests were like psychiatrists.

Today, we have actually have psychiatrists. And they're pretty darn effective at helping you sort out issues, albeit expensive at times. And a lot of it has to do with digging down into yourself to figure out what's wrong, not just figuring out "what would jesus do."

I think Religion has been a bit miffed it's taken a back seat to this, so they've really gone whole hog with the holy scriptures and mysticism stuff.

Can't say as I'd like to have that preached to me 24/7 on twitter. All the voodoo without the hoodoo.

Originally posted by jcool:If you engage an educated, mature person of faith like a priest, you are most likely going to get intelligent dialogue, as long as you are polite and genuine.

iPedophelia?

They already had all sorts of "mature" conversations about illegal child-rape without social media, huh? And "intelligent" conversations about condoms?

I don't see how the lies and coverups wouldn't just continue into a new medium.

This is a good example of what jcool is talking about.

Are all priests pedophiles? Isn't that like saying all Polish people are dumb, or all Jews are greedy? Did the Catholic church continue to lie and cover up the situation after "being caught"? Or did they talk about making changes?

Certainly fear of pedophilia and cover ups are justified given the recent allegations and reaction. But an intelligent discourse is about whether this is continuing, or if things have actually changed.

And, yes, you will get an intelligent conversation about condoms. You may not agree with the reasoning, but that is not a pre-requisite for any intelligent case.

I for one thing this is a great idea. Get priests out into forums like this one. They're educated, and many can make a reasoned and logical case for their beliefs. They do, however, have to realize this is a different forum than church; it's almost like addressing a "hostile" crowd (see post I quoted as evidence). And it requires someone to speak the language of the Internet, for lack of a better term. People on a forum like this don't care what the Bible says in terms of a basis for belief. They want to hear logical arguments for the existence of the Christian God. And then there's the whole flame war thing. I would hope Priests recognize this and are up to the task.

Never said they all were. But the issue affects the entire organization, so I'd expect any of them to have a mature conversation about it and acknowledge the facts and the reality of secular law... instead of dodging or dismissing or blaming the victim a la Bill Donohue.

quote:

Did the Catholic church continue to lie and cover up the situation after "being caught"? Or did they talk about making changes?

I'd say the former, followed reluctantly by hot air and empty promises. How many priests have been turned over for secular prosecution for their secular crimes again?

quote:

And, yes, you will get an intelligent conversation about condoms. You may not agree with the reasoning, but that is not a pre-requisite for any intelligent case.

If the "reasoning" includes a deity and omits science, I wouldn't call it intelligent. Not to pre-empt or anything, but acknowledging genetics and psychology isn't exactly a mandate of scripture. I'd love to see exceptions.

Religious sites and blogs are nothing new. People use the internet all the time to express and discuss religious views. This may be new to the pope but not millions of religious people all over the world.

I love the opening lines of this article. If you don't recognize them, then shame on you. On that note, this could be a disaster of biblical proportions.

quote:

Originally posted by jcool:

quote:

I'm an agnostic, but I'll say that I have never met a priest who did anything but welcome questions.

It boils down to their having faith, and that's not something that can be dispelled logically even if you have an eye toward trying.

'Course, on the Internet, it'll be a bunch of yahoos without any real interest in a dialogue, just in HURR I'M AN EDGY ATHEIST Dawkins-without-the-brains bullshit.

THIS.

If you engage an educated, mature person of faith like a priest, you are most likely going to get intelligent dialogue, as long as you are polite and genuine. Of course, this doesn't describe the internet well, so aggressive moderation will probably be required.

I agree with this to a certain extent. However, most priests and other religious leaders rarely (if ever) have their faith openly challenged, usually due to some ill-conceived notion of undeserved respect. Regardless of their level of intelligence, most are simply not prepared to debate religious dogma. I cannot fathom the feeding frenzy which would occur if the Catholic Church decided to take its message to the Internet and tried to participate in an even semi-open discussion via something like blog comments or even a message board.

Overall, I think this move will tend to hurt the Catholic Church more than it will help by further exposing its nonsensical dogma and illogical policies, such as preventing the use of condoms in HIV-ridden parts of Africa. After all, the current Pope did sign a secret order to excommunicate any priest who talked about the sex scandals and hurt the Catholic Church's reputation or wealth as a result.

It's one thing to stand in front of a pulpit and preach to a group of brainwashed, half asleep sheep. It's a whole different thing to preach to a wide range of people from different backgrounds who WILL question your logic, authority, and commands.

Originally posted by chronomitch:I agree with this to a certain extent. However, most priests and other religious leaders rarely (if ever) have their faith openly challenged, usually due to some ill-conceived notion of undeserved respect. Regardless of their level of intelligence, most are simply not prepared to debate religious dogma.

I'm an assistant minister in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and I really do wonder where you get your facts from. People challenge this plenty - not in the middle of a sermon generally (though you can tell from some people's expressions that they're not 100% in agreement), but they'll say at the door, or in a committee meeting, or a pastoral visit. Every church I've ever worshipped or worked in has encouraged people asking questions.

quote:

I cannot fathom the feeding frenzy which would occur if the Catholic Church decided to take its message to the Internet and tried to participate in an even semi-open discussion via something like blog comments or even a message board.

Really? You've never seen any of the many millions of religious discussions that have occurred on the Internet?

Originally posted by Tundro Walker:Religion used to be like psychotherapy. You had a problem, you'd seek the priest's guidance, and he'd quote some scripture that would help guide you along a virtuous path. During their time, priests were like psychiatrists.

Today, we have actually have psychiatrists. And they're pretty darn effective at helping you sort out issues, albeit expensive at times. And a lot of it has to do with digging down into yourself to figure out what's wrong, not just figuring out "what would jesus do."

I think Religion has been a bit miffed it's taken a back seat to this, so they've really gone whole hog with the holy scriptures and mysticism stuff.

Can't say as I'd like to have that preached to me 24/7 on twitter. All the voodoo without the hoodoo.

In a psychology class I took while in college we read a study were catholics were less likely to suffer from mental problems than protestants, and active Christians less so than non-active ones. I wouldn't say the priest/reverends roll as a 'mediator' of sorts for the personnel problems for individuals has taken a back seat. I for one would much rather talk to a well educated priest about my personnel and moral quandaries for free than a well educated individual that would cost me money.

Also, while I understand that this relates to technology, I wish ars hadn't post this article, simply because whenever ars posts an article with something about religion, even if it is only mentioned in passing. It brings out the anti-religion trolls like Singularity42, which then will bring out the religion trolls, and then somehow get into the 'debate' about how there 'is/isn't' a god.

Originally posted by chronomitch:I love the opening lines of this article. If you don't recognize them, then shame on you. On that note, this could be a disaster of biblical proportions.

quote:

Originally posted by jcool:

quote:

I'm an agnostic, but I'll say that I have never met a priest who did anything but welcome questions.

It boils down to their having faith, and that's not something that can be dispelled logically even if you have an eye toward trying.

'Course, on the Internet, it'll be a bunch of yahoos without any real interest in a dialogue, just in HURR I'M AN EDGY ATHEIST Dawkins-without-the-brains bullshit.

THIS.

If you engage an educated, mature person of faith like a priest, you are most likely going to get intelligent dialogue, as long as you are polite and genuine. Of course, this doesn't describe the internet well, so aggressive moderation will probably be required.

I agree with this to a certain extent. However, most priests and other religious leaders rarely (if ever) have their faith openly challenged, usually due to some ill-conceived notion of undeserved respect. Regardless of their level of intelligence, most are simply not prepared to debate religious dogma. I cannot fathom the feeding frenzy which would occur if the Catholic Church decided to take its message to the Internet and tried to participate in an even semi-open discussion via something like blog comments or even a message board.

Overall, I think this move will tend to hurt the Catholic Church more than it will help by further exposing its nonsensical dogma and illogical policies, such as preventing the use of condoms in HIV-ridden parts of Africa. After all, the current Pope did sign a secret order to excommunicate any priest who talked about the sex scandals and hurt the Catholic Church's reputation or wealth as a result.

It's one thing to stand in front of a pulpit and preach to a group of brainwashed, half asleep sheep. It's a whole different thing to preach to a wide range of people from different backgrounds who WILL question your logic, authority, and commands.

This comment was edited by chronomitch on January 25, 2010 20:44

As a catholic I demand your proof about the secret excommunication letters, my money is that you don't have any, and individuals who go to church are not sheep any more than individuals who don't go to church. It floors me that people care so much about whether or not a person believes in god or not that they are willing to describe an individual that doesn't think like them as sheep.

Originally posted by k2000k:As a catholic I demand your proof about the secret excommunication letters, my money is that you don't have any, and individuals who go to church are not sheep any more than individuals who don't go to church. It floors me that people care so much about whether or not a person believes in god or not that they are willing to describe an individual that doesn't think like them as sheep.

An excerpt from the article:In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

As to your comment about sheep, it is not I who started the metaphor about priests "tending to their flock." Likewise, it is not so much an insult to such people as it is to the institutions and indoctrination which made them that way. Shortly after I stopped believing, but was still attending services, I could not believe how many little brainwashing devices were used which people took for granted (repetition, guilt trips, being unworthy of being saved, etc).

Yes, these people are sheep, but not because they are inherently so. They were carefully crafted and manipulated to be so.

Originally posted by MoonShark:If the "reasoning" includes a deity and omits science, I wouldn't call it intelligent. Not to pre-empt or anything, but acknowledging genetics and psychology isn't exactly a mandate of scripture. I'd love to see exceptions.

Read everything in my next paragraph please.

Science is entirely the wrong realm for discussing God, unless you're discussing archeological evidence of Biblical claims or textual studies, etc. Philosophy is the realm for discussing the existence of God (some might argue this is a science too, as you get a PhD in the US, but "science" has a more specific meaning in modern culture).

Philosophy is based on logic and reason. It's about the why not the how. Metaphysics vs. physics. Phyiscs tells us the mechanism. Metaphyiscs tells us why that mechanism is occurring at all. Physics says "the universe is ordered." Metaphysics says "why is the universe ordered."

Biology says morality occurs in a certain part of our brain. Philosophy says "why is it there?" If you answer "evolution, of course!" that actually treads into philosophy. Why did it evolve? etc.

So, an intelligent discussion about the Christian God does not require science. It can use science, but it absolutely requires philosophy.

This whole discussion seems to be predicated on the idea that this is somehow new. Blogs by priests (and other Catholic religious) are nothing new. At all. I think that everyone knows, and understands, that the Internet is a viable alternative for fulfilling certain portions of one's ecclesiastical responsibility.

That it had to be addressed by the Vatican is merely a reflection of a few basic facts:

A) People mostly learn how to do their jobs by learning from the people who have already done their jobs. In a line of 'business' that considers itself unconnected to fashion, marketing, and technology, there hasn't ever been an obvious and compelling point at which people would have said, "Hey, now we need to get ourselves on this Internet thing." This is especially true in a lot of Western Catholic communities, which don't spend a lot of time thinking about evangelism.

B) Parochial priests are, by definition, overwhelmingly concerned with the spiritual care of the people in their physical vicinity. It's not immediately obvious that maintaining an internationally-accessible website is the best way to fulfill this responsibility. The same goes for those in monastic life. The reasoning behind this is simple and sound, largely because of...

C) The work of the priest is a lot more multi-faceted than most people seem to assume. The role of the priest as teacher is a part of it, but not necessarily the biggest or most important part. Among other things, the priest can be a counselor, consoler, mediator, model, or any number of other things. But even those roles, and most certainly the role of teacher, can (and are) all be done by non-priests. (In fact, the non-priests who would be more qualified to teach theology probably outnumber the priests who are qualified for it, these days, simply by virtue of demographics.) His most important role is in the distribution of the sacraments, which cannot be done on the Internet (certainly not now, very likely ever).

None of this changes the fact that priests would do well to use the Internet to do their job better. But most people here seem to misunderstand what exactly that would mean, and the extent to which it's even possible.

quote:

After all, the current Pope did sign a secret order to excommunicate any priest who talked about the sex scandals and hurt the Catholic Church's reputation or wealth as a result.

He's probably talking (somewhat ignorantly) about Crimen Sollicitationis. That document does in fact place an excommunication on anyone who reveals things learned through an ecclesiastical trial concerning certain offenses. But the claim is bunk, omitting the fact that victims had a moral obligation to report the offense to the ecclesiastical authorities and were not barred from also reporting what they did not learn through the trial to secular authorities.

Originally posted by k2000k:In a psychology class I took while in college we read a study were catholics were less likely to suffer from mental problems than protestants, and active Christians less so than non-active ones.

Originally posted by k2000k:As a catholic I demand your proof about the secret excommunication letters, my money is that you don't have any, and individuals who go to church are not sheep any more than individuals who don't go to church. It floors me that people care so much about whether or not a person believes in god or not that they are willing to describe an individual that doesn't think like them as sheep.

Not to counter your post, but sheep symbolism is used frequently throughout the Bible. It's not just the non Christians that call us sheep.

Originally posted by EatingPie:Philosophy is based on logic and reason.

No, those are subtopics of philosophy, under broader headings like ontology, epistemology, and empiricism. Not all philosophy follows strict logic. But otherwise I agree with your sentiment, and the kinds of philosophy I find useful are of course empirical.

quote:

Science is entirely the wrong realm for discussing God

Baloney. It rules out certain possible varieties of God, like a non-deceptive, benevolent creator who made humans 6000 years ago and later flooded the entire planet.

But sure, the wishy-washy, vague sort of deist god (like "The Force" in Star Wars) falls in with just plain "supernatural", unprovable stuff. That's clearly outside the scope of science, sure.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, let's stop derailing the thread, ok?

Originally posted by k2000k:In a psychology class I took while in college we read a study were catholics were less likely to suffer from mental problems than protestants, and active Christians less so than non-active ones.

Originally posted by Singularity42:Religious people are stupid--objectively so. Religion is the peak of irrationality--and a stumbling block to progress.

In an article calling for rational discourse, you can see how difficult this will be. And it's not even the church's fault!

For example. Why are religious people stupid? I have a Master's degree in Computer Science. This single counter-example contradicts your whole statement! (Stupid people do not get Master's degrees.)

Why is religion the peak of irrationality? Oppenheimer and Whitehead pointed out that modern nuclear physics was born of a "Christian milieu." "As Whitehead so beautifully points out, these men all believed that the universe was created by a reasonable God and, therefore, the universe could be found out by reason." (Schaeffer, He is There and He Is Not Silent) Whitehead himself claims that modern (nuclear) science comes from a religious-based belief system. How, then, is religion "the peak of irrationality"? Assuming, of course, that you would agree modern science is rational! Once again, a single example disproves your sweeping assumption.

And I'm really wondering how -- with Whitehead's statement in mind -- this became "a stumbling block to progress." Seems quite the opposite to me.